Whatta ya got?

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by Damian
It seems like your more likely to break a bone in your hand that cause the rin to vibrate enough to cause the ball miss an otherwise good shot.

ditto. I have seen a few hard slaps on the board. I don't think a slap will have an effect on a shot. Boards are pretty secure now days. I think the only purpose for the penalty for intentionally slaping the bboard is showmanship,..thus the T. I've only seen this once and that was when the player dunked, grab rim and slapped the board.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I had this exact situation just a few weeks ago. See http://www.officialforum.com/thread/12067 for what others said about it.

I no-called it, based on the fact that the defender was legitimately playing the ball.

Thanks Chuck...I usually check this Board out weekly if not daily...I must have missed that thread on one of the days I didn't check in.

I see some other officials think that maybe there could be a rule change for BI on the situation we are discussing.

Trust me guys, those that don't think a player can move a backboard, I had it happen last Saturday night in a boys Varsity game. The guy was 6'6" over 200lbs and a star athlete at the school...he moved the board and it DID cause the ball to bounce out from the vibration.

I've called this twice in 15 years...and I hate to say, I missed it both times. I didn't let it go...I called BI. I sold it, (and of course the one Coach wanted it) but I'm going to have to change my thinking untill they change the rule.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Yes, I read the comment...it says the "purpose of the rule is to penalize intentionalcontact with the backboard"...

I guess what I'm asking Mark... do you think it would be good to have a new BI rule for an opponent causing the ball not to enter the basket, because of the striking of the backboard unintentionally? (And keep the Technical for intentionally)

RookieDude:

Sorry, I took so long to get back to your post, but I just flat out missed it.

No, I do not think the rule should be changed. The rules should contain as few exceptions as possible. Sometimes I think that there are too many exceptions already in the rules. I think the situation that we are discussing does not occur enough to make a drastic change in the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by RookieDude
[BI've called this twice in 15 years...and I hate to say, I missed it both times. I didn't let it go...I called BI. I sold it, (and of course the one Coach wanted it) but I'm going to have to change my thinking untill they change the rule. [/B]

I've seen this called this way often and it is flat out wrong. By rule it is a T. Like someone else said, how can you be so sure the basket would have counted? The ball can do strange things and we goaltending and BI as ways we can count a basket. I think adding this would push our judgement to the limit and would be unfair.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by tomegun

I've seen this called this way often and it is flat out wrong. By rule it is a T. Like someone else said, how can you be so sure the basket would have counted? The ball can do strange things and we goaltending and BI as ways we can count a basket. I think adding this would push our judgement to the limit and would be unfair. [/B]

Are you talking about the original play, where the touching of the backboard was unintentional? If you are, then the rule is quite specific (see the COMMENT in the Casebook Play that I referenced), this is nothing and therefore not a technical foul. While the ball in the Casebook play went through the basket and the ball in the play in this thread did not, the point that the Casebook Play COMMENT is saying is if the contact with the backboard is not intentional then there is no infraction of the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Are you talking about the original play, where the touching of the backboard was unintentional? If you are, then the rule is quite specific (see the COMMENT in the Casebook Play that I referenced), this is nothing and therefore not a technical foul. While the ball in the Casebook play went through the basket and the ball in the play in this thread did not, the point that the Casebook Play COMMENT is saying is if the contact with the backboard is not intentional then there is no infraction of the rules.

MTD, Sr. [/B]

I agree with you. My comments above are about me seeing officials call the intentional slapping of the backboard BI and counting the basket. That is what is wrong.